Description
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
To Prepare:
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3A: Critical Appraisal of ResearchCritical Appraisal of Research Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: · An Evaluation Table
45 to >40.0 pts
Excellent
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. …The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
40 to >35.0 pts
Good
The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. …The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.
35 to >31.0 pts
Fair
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. …The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
31 to >0 pts
Poor
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.
45 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3B: Evidence-Based Best PracticesEvidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with the selected resources.
35 to >31.0 pts
Excellent
The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of the four peer reviewed articles.
31 to >27.0 pts
Good
The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained.
27 to >24.0 pts
Fair
The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. …The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained.
24 to >0 pts
Poor
The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. …The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field or are missing. …A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing.
35 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResource Synthesis
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. …A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. …Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. …Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. …No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting:The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Advanced Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Exploring Evidence-Based Practice
Aram Megrabian
Walden University
December 30, 2023
Clinical Inquiry and Evidence Analysis: PICO(T) Question
Introduction
A foundational component of healthcare decision-making is clinical inquiry, which is firmly
grounded in the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP). Using resources, you will
discover relevant evidence and carefully analyse its relevance and applicability as you work
to unravel a PICO(T) question based on a clinical issue.
Clinical Issue of Interest
The main objective of this investigation is to learn how nurse-led interventions reduce
medication mistakes in older patients dealing with various chronic diseases. Care for this
population must be sophisticated because of their specific issues.
PICO(T) Question
Is the six-month incidence of medication mistakes (O) reduced in older patients with
numerous chronic illnesses (P) when nurse-led interventions (I) are implemented compared to
routine care (C) without me?
Search and Evidence Collection
Databases Explored
We made sure to search many databases to get all the relevant material. The selected archives
included:
CINAHL (Walden University Library): Renowned for its rich repository of nursing-focused
literature.
Joanna Briggs Institute (Walden University Library): A specialized resource offering
evidence-based information for healthcare professionals.
MEDLINE (Walden University Library): A widely utilized medical literature database.
PubMed: Although not explicitly mentioned in the provided resources, its extensive coverage
makes it an indispensable tool for healthcare-related research.
Search Strategy
Crafting a specific and focused search strategy to achieve valuable results was crucial. Using
Boolean operators, we zeroed in on critical ideas like the elderly, chronic diseases, nurse-led
treatments, and pharmaceutical mistakes. We used the filters for meta-analyses, systematic
reviews, and issues with high critical appraisals to narrow our search.
Identified Resources
In our search for proof, we found several publications, each presenting a different angle on
how medication mistakes in the elderly relate to nurse-led interventions.
Systematic Review 1 (CINAHL)
Title: “Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Interventions in Reducing Medication Errors in the
Elderly.”
An extensive review that sheds light on the efficacy of programs spearheaded by nurses.
Meta-Analysis 1 (PubMed)
Title: “Nurse-Led Strategies for Medication Error Reduction in Older Adults.”
The results of nurse-led methods are examined statistically using a quantitative analysis.
Critically Appraised Topic (Joanna Briggs Institute)
Title: “Impact of Nurse-Led Interventions on Medication Safety in Elderly Patients.”
A targeted evaluation that looks closely at nurse-led interventions and how they affect drug
safety.
Article Synopses (MEDLINE): Articles addressing medication mistakes in the elderly and
nurse-led interventions from various perspectives.
Reflection on the Process: During this illuminating trip, we have learned a lot about the
process’s strengths and subtleties through clinical inquiry and evidence analysis.
Formulating the PICO(T) Question: Ensuring our search was focused and directed was made
possible by formulating a precise and well-defined PICO(T) query.
Database Exploration
Finding nursing-focused literature was much easier using Walden University Library’s
resources, especially CINAHL and the Joanna Briggs Institute. By utilizing these platforms, a
more targeted investigation that considered the intricacies of the medical problem was
possible.
Keyword Searching: Boolean expressions were critical in narrowing our search and allowing
for deeper investigation of the recognized ideas. We found more evidence that fit the
PICO(T) query because of its accuracy.
Systematic Review Identification: Our investigation yielded a sweeping overview of the
available evidence through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Not all of them tackled the
PICO(T) dilemma head-on, but they helped fill in the gaps.
Critical Appraisal: A keen eye was required to examine the proof. The reliability and
applicability of the evidence were significantly affected by the rigor of the study
methodology, the size of the samples, and the reputation of the sources.
Conclusion
An ongoing and iterative approach of clinical inquiry and evidence analysis is being
employed to determine the effect of nurse-led interventions on medication mistakes in older
patients coping with various chronic diseases. Basic knowledge is provided by the specified
resources, which include meta-analyses, critically acclaimed subjects, article synopses, and
systematic reviews. This investigation, however, is only a snapshot in time, highlighting the
necessity for constant adaptation and continual learning considering the ever-changing nature
of healthcare.
Finally, this hypothetical situation sets the stage for future studies by highlighting how
evidence-based practice is crucial for developing sophisticated and successful treatments for
geriatric individuals with complicated health demands.
References
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence-based practice question: A review of the
frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice,
6(2), 75–80.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare:
A guide to best practice. Wolters Kluwer.
Stillwell, S.B., Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidencebased practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based
practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61.
Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Systematic review. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthe…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
